2004
DOI: 10.1128/aem.70.3.1847-1851.2004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Differential Expression of Desulfovibrio vulgaris Genes in Response to Cu(II) and Hg(II) Toxicity

Abstract: The response of Desulfovibrio vulgaris to Cu(II) and Hg(II) was characterized. Both metals increased the lag phase, and Cu(II) reduced cell yield at concentrations as low as 50 M. mRNA expression was analyzed using random arbitrarily primed PCR, differential display, and quantitative PCR. Both Cu(II) and Hg(II) (50 M) caused upregulation of mRNA expression for an ATP binding protein (ORF2004) and an ATPase (ORF856) with four-to sixfold increases for Hg(II) and 1.4-to 3-fold increases with Cu(II). These results… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
14
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
2
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Upon sulfide addition, the sulfate concentration profiles in the vials containing different Hg(II) concentrations barely changed. This observation is in agreement with the results of Chang et al [16] who reported that Hg(II) increased the lag phase of sulfate reduction but did not affect the SRB growth rate. Compared with Figure 4(c) the lag phase time for each vial in Figure 4(d) decreased from 45 to 25 h and the sulfate reduction rate in each vial also increased.…”
Section: Influence Of Sulfide On Srb Heavy Metal Toxicitysupporting
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Upon sulfide addition, the sulfate concentration profiles in the vials containing different Hg(II) concentrations barely changed. This observation is in agreement with the results of Chang et al [16] who reported that Hg(II) increased the lag phase of sulfate reduction but did not affect the SRB growth rate. Compared with Figure 4(c) the lag phase time for each vial in Figure 4(d) decreased from 45 to 25 h and the sulfate reduction rate in each vial also increased.…”
Section: Influence Of Sulfide On Srb Heavy Metal Toxicitysupporting
confidence: 83%
“…Because SRB were identified as the primary organisms responsible for monomethylmercury (MeHg) production during the biotic transformation of inorganic mercury and Hg(II) through energy-dependent uptake systems [16,18,19], the toxic resistance of SRB to Hg(II) was higher than that of other bacteria. At an initial Hg(II) concentration lower than 50 mg L -1 sulfate reduction was not completely inhibited (Figure 4(c)).…”
Section: Influence Of Sulfide On Srb Heavy Metal Toxicitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…RAP-PCR was originally adapted from the differential-display PCR method, and it is a powerful technique for the analysis of transcriptional changes, especially those of organisms for which very little or no genetic information is available (6,22). Even though more robust or modern techniques have been developed for gene expression profiling, RAP-PCR has in many cases significant advantages (5,10,36), and it is still being used as a valid method for many studies performed with different organisms (4,17,23,34,37). In our case, we employed this technique to determine transcriptional changes of S. macedonicus due to acid adaptation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Antimicrobial compounds such as heavy metals and antibiotics are common causes of growth arrest in microorganisms (32,(35)(36)(37)(38). In many cases, recovery from growth arrest is attributed to the induction of a genetically encoded resistance mechanism or the selection of antimicrobial-tolerant mutants during antimicrobial exposure (32,36).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%